VINDICATION OF THE BAPTISTS 


Canaieenucnesnecaase one? 


FROM THE 


CHARGE OF BIGOTRY, 


/ 


AND oF 


a 7 
nt usd 


EMBARRASSING MISSIONARY OPERATIONS, 


Vs ~~ ea < — ee 
——— : = are x 
a ne : = 
pag “< , 


— Fs 
‘> pare 


oF ch : RR 


TRANSLATING, anp rerusine To TRANSFER. 


_ 





SAIN ALL THEIR VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES AMONG THE HEATHEN, 


THE WORDS 


_ RELATING TO BAPTISM. © 


BY JOHN DOWLING, A. Me 
- PASTOR OF THE WEST BAPTIST CHURCH, NEW-YORK, 





NeweEork: 


J.P. CALLENDER, 162 NASSAU-STREET, 


- John Gray, Printer, 222 Water-street. 


1838, 








VINDICATION OF THE BAPTISTS 


FROM THE 
CHARGE OF BIGOTRY, 


4ND OF 
EMBARRASSING MISSIONARY GQ@PERATIONS, 
BY 
TRANSLATING, ann rerusine to TRANSFER 


iW ALL THEIR VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES AMONG THE HEATHEN, 


THE WORDS 


RELATING TO BAPTISM. 


BY JOHN DOWLING, A. M- 


PASTOR OF THE WEST BAPTIST CHURCH, NEW-YORK. 





NemwexX ork: 


J. P. CALLENDER, 141 FULTON-STREET, 
Jehn Gray, Printer, 222 Water-street. 





_ 1838. 


as ait aa ba, 


A ‘ * '* if 
C " 


” 


‘Oat Aaa iD OMG) Bethan detog i ata 


<,e 





INTRODUCTION. 


‘THe following paragraph is extracted from a recent work pub- 
lished in this city, entitled “‘ Humsues or New-Yorx,” by Da- 
vid M. Reese, M.D. Under the head of Uttra SrectTarianisM, 
the author remarks : ‘ 

“* There are two among the prominent sects of Christendom, who 
are most deeply involved in the sin of embarrassing, delaying and 
hindering the conversion of the world, especially so far as the hea- 
then nations are concerned ; and to these especially does the work 
of reformation belong, unless they are prepared to put their Ultra 
_ sectarianism into the scale, as of more wtrinsic value than the 
souls of men. The first of these 1s the Baptist denomination, a 
large portion of whose ministry and membership cannot even unite 
with other Christians in furnishing the bible to heathen nations in 
ther own language unless the word IMMERSE 17s substituted for 
BAPTIZE where tt occurs wn the English translation. If this be 
not the very climax of Ultra-sectarianism, we despair of indicating 
ets existence anywhere.” 

Had the above accusation appeared only in the pages of the 
book from which it is extracted, the limited circulation to which 
the merits of that work entitle it, might have precluded the neces- 
sity of areply. As, however, the conductors of some highly 
respectable religious papers have seen fit to transfer the above 
extract into their columns, as especially deserving attention, and 
thus have given it a publicity which otherwise it would not have 
attained, the writer of this pamphlet considers it due to the de- 
nomination of which he is a member, briefly and candidly to exa- 
mine the justice of the charge. Were this the only instance in 
which the conduct and motives of the friends of the American 
and Foreign Bible Society have been impeached by their Pedo- 
baptist brethren, it might have been suffered to pass in silence. 
So far however is this from being the case, it is well known that 
the charges of party feeling, sectarranism and bigotry have been 
so often hurled at that Society, and at the denomination which 
sustains it, within the brief period that it has been in existence, 
that they have already become almost as familiar as household 
words. While we shall endeavour to vindicate ourselves from 
the charge with which we are thus assailed, the course of argu- 
ment we shall be compelled to pursue, it is hoped, may be per- 
manently useful to our own churches, as an exposition of the 
principles by which as Baptists we should be governed in fur- 
nishing the heathen with the pure and uncorrupted word of God. 

Our object is not simply to reply to the paragraph quoted from 
the work of Dr. Reese, of which the ludicrousness and vulgarity 


4 


of the title is such as almost to forbid its introduction in a serious 
discussion. A reply to such a production, even if crowned 
with undoubted victory, would be an effort, the results of which 
would be far too unimportant to compensate for the time it might 
consume. My design is rather to spread before the public such 
a statement of the principles upon which Baptist missionaries 
have always acted and are still resolved to act in all their versions 
of the scriptures among the heathen, as it is hoped, may convince 
every candid reader, not only that they are not chargeable with 
bigotry, but that they have acted in accordance with the princi- 
ples of eternal truth and justice, and by no means inconsistent 
with that cuHarity which, while it suffereth long and is kind, at 
the same time REJOICETH IN THE TRUTH. 

The paragraph referred to is merely placed at the commence- 
ment of these pages, to show that we do not complain without 
cause, of the attacks which have been made on our conduct and 
motives in this matter, and is itself, merely a specimen of the 
charges which have been repeated against us in different quarters. 
We do not feel called upon, therefore, to examine the claims 
which this writer or his book has to the attention of the public, 
or to animadvert upon the exceedingly bad taste (to use the mild~- 
est term) displayed in the introduction of any thing connected 
with the eternal welfare of 600 millions of heathen, in a book with 
such a title. We could retaliate, if we chose; but we think to 
apply the term humbug to any thing connected with religion, or 
to the conscientious opinions of acknowledged Christians, would 
be inconsistent with that charity which doth not behave itself un- 
seemly. In the following pages I shall endeavour to avoid un- 
kind words, while at the same time I shall strive to give to the 
arguments employed their full force. My motto shall be 

** Soft words and hard arguments.” 

The charge of being ‘‘ deeply involved in the sin of embarrass- 
ing, delaying and hindering the conversion of the world,” is cer- 
tainly a serious one; and if it were true, I would be among the 
first to sound the alarm, and exhort my brethren who have been 
guilty of translating the word denoting the ordinance of baptism 
by us proper meaning, to repent of this their wickedness. 

If, however, it should eventually prove, that the charge of em- 
barrassing missionary operations belongs, not to the venerated 
Judson, and Marshman, and Yates, and the sainted Carey ; not 
to those who have adhered literally to the commands of the great 
Head of the church in reference to an ordinance of his own ap- 
pointment, but to those who have substituted. in its stead some- 
thing which Christ did not command, then it will be acknow- 
ledged that ‘ the work of reformation belongs” not to the former, 
but to the latter class of individuals. 


VINDICATION OF THE BAPTISTS. 


CHAPTER I. 


THE BAPTISTS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH RE- 
SULTED IN THEIR SEPARATION FROM THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, AND 
THEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE WITH BIGOTRY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT 
STILL CO-OPERATE WITH THAT SOCIETY IN FURNISHING THE BIBLE TO 
THE HEATHEN. 


BEForE we proceed to state the grounds upon which we be- 
- lieve not only that we have a lawful right, but that we are im- 
pevatively bound to translate and not to transfer the word baptizo, 
in giving the bible to the heathen, it may be desirable to correct 
a misapprehension which may arise in the minds of many from 
the following expression in the above extract. 

‘‘ The first of these is the Baptist denomination, a large por- 
tion of whose ministry and membership cannot even unite with other 
christians in furnishing the lible to heathen nations in their own 
language, unless the word immerse is substituted for baptize, where 
at occurs im our English translation.” 

Now I ask, would not the first idea formed by a person igno- 
rant of facts, upon reading the above sentence, be, that the Bap- 
tists had voluntarily separated from their brethren of other denomi- 
nations in the American Bible Society, because they, (i. e. other 
denominations) would not translate the word denoting the ordi- 
-nance of baptism, wmmerse ? 

So far then is this from being true, that the Baptists did unite 
for many years, with other christians in giving the bible to the 
heathen, though the word was not translated immerse by any ex- 
cept the missionaries of the Baptist denomination. ‘The doctrine 
of the Baptists always has been and still is, that every translator 
of the bible is accountable only to God for the faithful discharge 


6 


of his duty. ‘¢ Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? 
To his own master he standeth or falleth.”” Rom. xiv. 4. 

Instead, therefore, of refusing to unite with other Christians in 
furnishing the heathen with the bible unless the word was uni- 
formly translated zmmerse, the Baptists only wished to have the 
liberty of discharging their duty to God and their own con- 
sciences, and in the discharge of that duty to be let alone. The 
liberty which they demanded for themselves, they were willing 
that others should enjoy, and had they not been denied it, they 
would still have co-operated willingly and cheerfully with other 
Christians in the American Bible Society, in furnishing the hea- 
then world with the bible, leaving every denomination, for the 
faithfulness of the translations executed by their missionaries, ac- 
countable only to God. 

Instead, therefore, of asserting, in broad and general terms, that 
the Baptists were unwilling to unite with Pedobaptists in furnish- 
ing the bible to the heathen unless the word ‘‘ immerse was sub- 
stituted for baptize,’ it ought to have been stated that the Pedo- 
baptists were unwilling to unite with Baptists in furnishing the 
heathen with the bible, unless in the translations made by Carey, 
Judson, and others, in every case where the word denoting the 
ordinance of baptism occurs, it were left wntranslated, and the 
meaning of the word concealed by substituting a Greek word ut- 
terly unintelligible to the heathen, in place of the appropriate 
Burman or Bengalee word expressive of the meaning of Banrica 
(Bapitizo.) 3 

The Baptists naturally enough inquired—Why after co-ope- 
rating with us for so many years in the circulation of these very 
same translations, should you at length resolve to discard them ? 
Why should we be required to conceal the import of the word 
denoting baptism, by refusing to translate the term into the lan- 
guage of the heathen, and to give them instead, a Greek word, 
or even an English word, as unintelligible to eastern nations as 
the language of the Mohawk Indian? And what was the reply 
of the American Bible Society? Stripped of ambiguity, their 
reply was in substance thus: ‘Instruct your missionaries to 
transfer the word BamTigw into the languages of the heathen, and 
not to translate it; alter the translations you have already made, 


7 

and where you have given a translation of the word, strike it out, 
and substitute instead thereof the Greek word; and then you 
may continue to act with us, then we will appropriate money to 
aid in circulating your translations; but if you refuse these 
conditions, you must look elsewhere for aid; we cannot give 
you a single dollar.” 

That this was the purport of the resolutions, in their applica- 
tion to this particular case, adopted by the Board of the Ameri- 
can Bible Society, February 17th, 1836, by a majority of 30 to 
14, no one will pretend to deny. Let it be remembered too, 
that the resolutions, thus virtually excluding the Baptists from 
the American Bible Society, and refusing further aid to Baptist 
translations, were adopted at atime when there was a large 
balance in the treasury of that Society, much of which had been 
contributed by Baptists in the undoubted persuasion, that the 
Society would never refuse to aid the Baptist missionaries, in 
furnishing their translations to the heathen. The Baptists had 
contributed 7 legacies only, the sum of $45,000, and probably 

a much larger amount in other ways; while the whole amount 
appropriated to aid the Baptist denomination, in money and 
bibles together, is $28,450 75. (See the report of the American 
and Foreign Bible Society, during the year of their provisional 
organization,) p. 29, a most valuable and interesting document. 

Compelled by the passage of the said resolutions, as 
the Baptists were, either to purchase the aid of the American 
Bible Society by a sacrifice of principle, or else to act alone; 
they preferred the latter alternative. 

It is reported to the disgrace of the aspiring Paley, that he said 
on one occasion “‘ [ cannot afford to have a conscience.”” Had the 
Baptist Board of Missions accepted the appropriation of $5000 
which was made on the day the resolutions referred to were 
adopted, upon the condition that they would make the alterations 

‘required, they would have thereby proclaimed to the world the 
same humiliating confession—We cannot afford to have a con- 
science. 

Driven thus from co-operation with their brethren of other de- 
nominations, are the Baptists to be charged with Ultra-sectarian- 
ism and Bigotry, because they act by themselves? With as 
much propriety might a father correct his son for not remaining 


8 


within doors, when he himself had turned him into the street 
and locked the door upon ‘him. © 

After the passing of that act. of the American Bible Society 
which excluded the Baptists from a participation in its benefits, 
the only condition upon which they could have retained their 
connexion with the society, was the alteration of the translations 
of the Scriptures already made, and the acting upon a different 
principle in future translations. ‘The head and front of their 
offending was, a steady refusal to submit, in this respect, to the 
dictation of the American Bible Society. For this it is that the 
charges of bigotry and Ultra-sectarianism have been so unspa- 
ringly hurled at their heads. What is bigotry ? It is defined by the 
lexicographers blind zeal, prejudice. Now, in refusing to alter 
translations which we consider faithful, if we are impelled by a 
blinded zeal, and if we are actuated by no higher motive than 
attachment to a party, then we submit to the charge; but if we 
can show reasons of the most sacred and binding character, rea- 
sons which our allegiance to our Master, and our duty to the 
heathen forbid us to compromise, then we repel the charge, and 
it recoils upon the heads of those who make it. 


CHAPTER II, 


& STATEMENT OF THE REASONS WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF BAPTISTS, REN-+ 
DER IT UNLAWFUL AND UNJUST TO TRANSFER WORDS, WHICH ARE 
CAPABLE OF BEING LITERALLY TRANSLATED. 


To render intelligible to all, the reasons we shall assign for our 
refusal to ¢ransfer the Greek word denoting the ordinance of bap- 
‘tism; it may be necessary distinctly to state that to transfer a 
word from one language to another, is simply to express the word 
by the same letters as are used in the original language, with 
such achange of termination as may be required by the analogy 
of words. 
On the other hand to translate a ward, i is to express its mean- 
ing by a word belonging to the language into which the transla- 


9 


tion is made, of the same signification as the word in the original 
language. 

The following examples will render this matter plain to the 
English reader. 














Greek swords. | Transferred as in the, Translated, according 
| Popish Rhemish to the Lewicon of Park- 
| Testament. hurst, a learned Epis- 
| copalian. 
be 1 oad i 

A. Guuoc 
{Azumos) | Azymes | Untleavened bread. 
fe de Rina sapamatle densa ls PRL i 
TAOKA LO 
(Pascha) Pasch | The passo ver. 
Barriga ii AN | 
(Baptizo) Baptize To dip, immerse, or 
(transferred also in the | plunge in water. 








|common version.) | 
It would have been easy to multiply similar instances of the 
transfer of Greek words, into the Popish Rhemish ‘Testament, 
concerning which miscalled translation the learned historian Ful- 
ler has remarked: that it was a translation ‘‘ which needed to be 
translated,” and that its editors by all means laboured to suppress 
the light of truth under one pretext or other. (See Horne’s 
Critical Introduction, vol. ii. p. 147.) ‘The above instances will, 
however, be sufficient for our purpose. T'o show how unintelli- 
gible the transfer of words from the Greek language, instead of 
their translation by equivalent English words, renders the pas- 
sage in which they are transferred, I will quote two verses from 
the Rhemish Testament, in which two of the above words occur, 
in their transferred, or untranslated form, with the corresponding 
passage from the common version, where they are translated. 


From the Rhemish Testament. 


Luke xxii. 1.—And the festival of the Azymes approached, 
which is called Pasch. 

V.7.—And the day of the Azymes came, wherein it was ne- 
cessary that the Pasch should Be killed. 


10 
From the common English Versions 


Luke xxii. 1.—Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, 
which is called the Passover. 

V. 7.—Then came the day of unleavened bread when the 
Passover must be killed. } 

Every Protestant will admit that these two words become much 
more intelligible when translated, as in the common version, than 
when transferred as in the Popish version, and that therefore they 
ought to be translated. 

But is it not immediately perceived that the word Barriga 
(Baptizo) is in precisely the same predicament with the other 
two words? What valid reason, therefore, can be assigned why 
Agupoc (Azumos) and taoya (Pascha) should be translated, 
and Barrisw ‘Baptize) should be transferred, or left untrans- 
lated? It will probably be replied ; ‘ though it be true that the 
word Baptize, is simply the Greek word Baptizo with an En- 
glish ending, yet by long use it has become familiar to English 
ears, and may therefore now be regarded as an English word.’ 
Weare satisfied with the answer as a sufficient reason for avoid~- 
ing to make any alteration at this late day, in our common En- 
glish version, with which, if we may judge from the attempts of 
Pedobaptists, to explain away ‘‘ going down into,” and ‘*coming 
up out of” the water (Acts vili. 38, 39,) we think we are as well 
satisfied as they are. Yet we still think, that when our translation 
was made, the translators neglected their duty in leaving Baptizo 
untranslated. But we would ask,—can the same reason be as- 
signed for using the Greek term instead of a translation of it, im 
giving the bible to the heathen, to whom either Barrigw or Bap- 
tize, would be as perfectly strange and unintelligible, as a word 
of Burman or Shanscrit would be to the unlettered English 
reader ? ‘ | 

Tt may not be out of place here to remark, that Baptists are 
the less disposed to complain of the word Baptize being ceonti- 
nued in the English version from the fact that its true meaning is 
gradually, but surely gaining ground. The force of truth has 
constrained the author of the most valuable lexicon of the En- 
glish language ever published, (Mr. Charles Richardson,) judg- 





11 


ing of the meaning of the word baptize (as he judges of the 
meaning of other words) from its derivation, to define it as fol- 
lows: ‘‘to dup or merge frequently, to sink, to plunge, to wm- 
merge.” (See part 2, of Richardson’s Dictionary, just published 
by William Jackson, of New-York.) And we have little doubt, 
that the time is rapidly approaching, when it shall be universally 
acknowledged, that this is the precise and exclusive meaning of 
the word baptize. Supposing it be admitted then, that the word 
baptize by long use, has become an English word, and therefore 
may be safely retained in the English version; it will certainly not 
be pretended that baptize isa Bengalee or a Burman or a Karen 
word; and if it isnot, then there is precisely the same reason for 
translating, and not transferring this word into those languages 
as there is for translating A¢vpoc (Azumos) racya (Pascha,) 
or any other Greek word. Supposing baptize were a native 
English word, still we should have no more tight to transfer it 
into the Burman language, as it would be quite as unjustifiable to 
cover up the meaning of this ordinance from the Burmans, by 
employing an English word, as to use a Greek word, both of 
which would be equally barbarous and unintelligible to them. 

This then, it will be acknowledged by all, is the true state of 
the case. The Baptist missionaries from the time that Dr. Carey 
printed his Bengalee New Testament in 1801, (37 years ago,) 
have invariably translated and never transferred the word denoting 
the ordinance of baptism. Up to the commencement of the 
year 1836, the American Bible Society aided those missionaries 
in the circulation of the translations they had made. On che 17th 
of February, 1836, resolutions were passed, which required the 
Baptist missionaries, either to substitute the Greek word for 
baptism, in place of the translation they had given of that word, 
or else to expect no further aid from the American Bible Society. 
They refused to make the required alteration, and consequently 
forfeited the patronage of that Society. 

It remains for us to state the reasons which led the Baptists to 
refuse to transfer the words relating to Baptism, in their versions 
among the heathen ; in order to show that they were not actuated 
by a blind party zeal, but by a conscientious regard to truth and 


12 


duty, and that therefore the charge of Bigotry and Ultra-secta- 
hanism is both ungenerous and unjust.* 

1. The first reason which prompted this refusal to transfer the 
words relating to Baptism was a solemn conviction, that it would 
be UNJUST TO THE HEATHEN {fo conceal the meaning of any 
word im the inspired record, by leaving wt untranslated. 

If we leave this or any other word untranslated in the Burman 
Testament, it is evident, as the Greek word will be entirely fo- 
reign to the native Burman, that he will be compelled to seek its 
meaning by applying to the missionary ; but is it not unjust to 
compel the poor heathen to depend upon uninspired men for the 
meaning of that which he might learn just as well from the inspir- 
ed record, if it were not cdueealél from him under the cover of » 
a Greek word. Would it not excite the astonishment of the 
heathen when informed of the meaning of the untranslated 
word, that that meaning was not expressed in his own language, 
as well as the meaning of other words inhis bible? 

There seems nothing strange to the English ear in the sound 
of the word Baptize, because it has become familiar :—not so 
with the heathen who never before heard the word. In order to 
understand how strange and unintelligible this word would sound 
to hig ear, we must transfer some other word which is as strange 
to the English ear, as this must be to the Burman ear. 

Let us illustrate this remark by the following example: Matt. 
xiv. 25. And in the fourth watch of the qian Jesus went 
unto them peripating on the sea. 

In this sentence the Greek word repiratoy (peripaton} 
(walking) ‘s transferred and not translated. 


* Lest it should be doubted whether our Pedobaptist friends admit that the words 
teferring to baptism, are wntranslated in our common English version, apd whether 
they do actually advocate leaving them untranslated, in the versions which we give to 
the heathen; I would quote the following from areport signed by a committee con- 
sisting of the Reverend Doctors: Macauley, Milnor, Dewitt and others, and presented 
to the board of the American Bible Society, October Ist, 1835. It is stated as one, 
among other reasons for refusing to patronise the versions, made by the Baptist 
missionaries. 

‘The words Baptizo, and Baptisma, and their cognates, being left untranslated as 
in the English, and many other excellent versions imposes no difficulty on any denomi- 
nation of Christians, as it leaves every minister or missionary, at perfect liberty to ex- 
plain them, according to the peculiar views of his particular denomination.” 





13 


Had we never seen an English Testament before, by what 
means, if ignorant of Greek, should we discover the meaning 
of this (to us) barbarous expression ‘‘ perzpating on the sea?’’ 
Plainly, in no other way than by inquiring of our teachers. They 
would of course tell us that it meant ‘‘ walking on the sea:”’ but 
might we not then justly respond by demanding—Why should 
you leave us to discover from yourselves who are uaenspired men, 
that which we might have learnt as well from the exspired record, 
if you had not covered up its meaning by refusing to translate 
it? The injustice of which we should have a right to complain 
in this case, is the same which is practised upon the heathen, by 
refusing to translate into their own languages the word expressive 
of the ordinance of baptism. 

It will be easily seen that such examples as the above might be 
multiplied to any extent; we will content ourselves, with pre- 
senting but one more. | | 

Luke ii. 25, ‘* And behold there was a man in Jerusalem 
whose name was Simeon ; and the same man was just and devout, 
prosdechoming the consolation of Israel.’’ In this sentence the 
Greek word tpoodey6uevoc, the participle of mpoodexyoua (yrosde- 
chomar,) to expect, to wait for, is transferred, and not translated. 
Suppose an unlettered Englishman who had never before seen a 
New Testament should read this passage, how would he be able 
to ascertain the meaning of this strange-sounding expression : 
«‘prosdechoming the consolation of Israel?’ I reply he would 
understand it just as well as the unlettered Burman, would under- 
stand the Greek word Gatto (Baptizo) when transferred into 
his language. The cases are precisely parallel, and if in the 
former case an Englishman might justly complain that the word 
Tpoadexouevoc, was not translated by a word belonging to his own 
language, but merely printed in English letters ; so in the latter 
case the Burman might justly complain that the word Barriga, 
was not translated by a word belonging to his own language, but 
merely printed in Burman letters. 

2. Another reason of our refusal was, we conceived. that by 
concealing the meaning of this word, WE SHOULD BE ASSUMING 
A RIGHT, WHICH DID NOT BELONG To US, the right of obscuring 
what Christ has made clear, and should thus violate our alle- 


14 


giance to HIM whom alone we acknowledge as our Lord and 
Master. | 

If it be lawful to conceal from the heathen, the meaning of 
one word in the book of inspiration, it would be hard to prove 
that it is not equally lawful to conceal the meaning of two or of 
twenty words. And if we have a right to do this, how can we 
prove that the Papists have not an equal right to lock up the 
whole bible in an unknown tongue’? The principle is the same, 
whether we conceal one word, or the whole bible, from the peo- 
ple, in an unknown tongue. The difference is merely in the 
extent to which the principle is carried out.—Where did we ob- 
tain the right to conceal the meaning of one of Christ’s commands 
from the heathen? If it were our own word we might keep back 
a part of it, or the whole of it, if such were our will and plea- 
sure; but since it is God’s word addressed to all nations, we con- 
ceive we have no right to conceal from the heathen the meaning 
of asingle syllable. This remark is affectionately commended 
to the attention of those brethren who in our opinion, are as- 
suming a right which does not belong to them, by conceal- 
ing from the heathen the meaning of an important ordinance of 
Christ’s appointment, by transferring instead of translatung the 
word denoting baptism. Are the Baptists then to be accused of 
Sectarianism and Bigotry because they will not diminish from 
the word of God, by concealing from the heathen the meaning 
of baptism under the veil of an unintelligible Greek word? Let 
the charge be hurled at us, if it must be so, yet we cannot alter 
our course, so Jong as we read in the book of the Lord, ‘Ye 
shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall 
ye diminish aught from rt, that ye may keep the commandments 
of the Lord your God, which I command you.” Deut. iv. 2. 

3. Another important reason why we could not consent to leave 
the words referring to baptism untranslated, was that by so dog, 
WE SHOULD RECOGNISE A PRINCIPLE OF TRANSLATION, BY 
WHICH not only an important ordinance, but EVERY FUNDA- 
MENTAL DOCTRINE MIGHT BE OBSCURED, simply by transferring, 
that 1s, leaving untranslated, the words referring to such doctrine. 

Why are we called upon to leave the words denoting baptism 
untranslated? Evidently, for the simple reason that we are as- 





15 


sociated with other parties in giving the bible to the world, whose 
views and practice on the subject of baptism differ from 
our own. 

The principles recognised in this demand may be thus stated : 

(1.) Whenever the translation of a word will clash with our 
peculiar views, we have a right to leave it untranslated. 

(2.) Whenever two parties holding different sentiments are 
united in furnishing the heathen with the bible, such words as, 
if translated, will conflict with the sentiments of either party, 
must be left untranslated. 

Sufficient, it is presumed, has already been said, to show that 


the first of these principles is founded in error. It remains that 
we examine to what results the recognition of the other principle 


would lead us. It might easily be shown that all the doctrines 
which we have been accustomed to regard as the fundamentals of 
the gospel, might be obliterated from the bible, by this absurd 
doctrine of rRANSFER. The following are presented as examples 
of the results to which this principle would lead us. 

(1.) In the Popish Rhemish ‘Testament to which allusion has 
been made above, the word petavoew (metanoeo) which signi- 
fies to change one’s mind, to repent, is translated by the Papists 
for the purpose of sustaining themselves in an unscriptural dogma, 
Do penance. Example: Matt. iii. 1, 2. ‘And in those days 
cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Jewry, and 
saying Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” To 
use their own words, in the notes to the Rhemish Testament, they 
thus translate the word, because ‘‘ perfect repentance”’ includes 
in it ‘painful satisfaction,” i.e. as explained by their writers a 
satisfaction for sin performed by the sinner himself. Every 
evangelical Protestant will cry out against the vile treachery of 
thus mistranslating a word, for the purpose of supporting 
an unscriptural dogma, utterly subversive of salvation by grace. 
Now we do not affirm that the principle upon which we are re- 
quired to transfer Baptizo, would sanction the above mzstrans- 
latvon (although it is a fact that the American Bible Society does 
circulate versions, containing the above corruption.)* Yet we 


* Itis not a little surprising that the American Bible Society, which refuses to 
patronise the versions of Baptists, because they have translated the word Baptizo, 


16 


do affirm, that the Papist would have the same right to transfer 
this word, and then to explain it ‘‘ according to the peculiar views 
of his particular denomination,” as the Pedobaptist has to trans- 
fer Baptizo, and to explain it according to the views of his deno- 
mination; and we affirm further, that if united in a Society with 
others for the purpose of furnishing the heathen with the bible, 
the Papist would have the very same right to call upon all others 
to transfer the Greek word metanoco, as Pedobaptists have to 
call upon Baptists to transfer the Greek word Baptezo. ‘Thus 
should we be under the necessity of mocking, the heathen by 
presenting them with a miscalled translation, containing such 
unintelligible barbarisms as the following: Matt. iii. 1, 2. ‘In 
those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of 
Judea, and saying, metanoce ye ; for the kingdom of Heaven is 
at hand.” 

(2.) It is well known that Socinians deny that Jesus Christ is 
God. Itis equally well known that the Scriptures most plainly 
assert that he is God. Suppose then we were translating John 
i 1. Ia the beginning was the Word, and the word was withGod, 
and the word was God. 

The Socinian might meet us, upon the doctrine of the right 
of transfer and say, ‘ That clashes with our sentiments, you must 
therefore transfer, and not translate the word Q«oc ( Theos’) ; and 
accordingly we write it thus: Jn the beginning was the Word, and 
the Word was with God, and the Word was Theos. 

Perhaps it will be objected, the cases are not parallel ; the word 
Theos means God and it is easy to prove it. We reply, that has 
nothing to do with the argument ; if it had, we would answer, ‘ it is 
as easy to prove that Baptizo means to immerse, as it is to prove 
that Theos means God.’ The question is not, 2m this place, what 
do either of these words mean,—You call upon us to transfer 
Baptizo, not because it means this or that, but simply because 
your opinion differs from ours, in reference to the ordinance of 
baptism : the Socinian calls upon us to transfer Theos, for the very 
same reason, and we are just as much bound, ?f this principle be 


by a word which is acknowledged by all the learned to be its primary signification ; 
should notwithstanding continue to patronise and to circulate Popish versions, con- 
taining the above wilful corruption of the Scriptures. 





17 


correct to obey one as the other. 1 wiLL app—it is just as 
much our bounden duty to refuse to be guilty of this TREASON To 
OUR MASTER, in the one case as in the other! 

If for this, we are to be charged with Bigotry, we will glory 
in the charge, and esteem it our highest honour, and our brightest 
ornament! the charge of calling no man master, and of adhering 
to the commands of Christ as the only lawgiver in his church !! 

Let it not be supposed that we draw a parallel between the im- 
portance of the ordinance of Baptism, and the doctrine of Christ’s 
essential divinity ; a mistake on the former is doubtless held by 
multitudes who are sincere and devoted Christians ; a denial of 
the latter is subversive of the very foundations of Christianity. 
Our design is merely to show, that the principle, upon which we 
are required to transfer Baptzzo in the one case, would, if carried 
out to its legitimate results, equally require that we should trans- 
fer Theos in the other. 

{3.) One more instance shall suffice in illustration of this 
point. 

The Universalist denies the eternity of future punishment. 

Suppose we were translating Mat. xxv. 46. ‘‘ And these shall 
go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life 
eternal.” 

Now the Universalist does not believe in everlasting punish- 
ment. Upon the same principle as we are required to transfer 
Baptizo, he might require us to transfer aidvov (aionion,) and 
then the passage would read as follows: ‘‘ And these shall go 
away into aonion punishment, but the righteous into life eter- 
nal.” 

Suppose we were translating Mark ix. 43, 44. ‘Into the 
fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, 
and the fire is not quenched.” 

The Universalist might say, ‘this translation appears to clash 
with my sentiments, you must therefore transfer the obnoxious 
words in this passage, and not translate them, lest the heathen, 
should conclude that my doctrine is not the doctrine of the bible.’ 

Accordingly, as in duty bound, (if this principle is correct,) 
we proceed to cover up from the heathen the meaning of the 


3 


48 


passage, by a transfer of the Greek words, and we print it as 
follows : 
«Into the fire asbeston; where their worm teleuteth not, and 
the fire is not sbennuted.”? From aoBeoroc (asbestos) unquench- 
able ; teAevraw (teleutao), to die; and o@evyvue (sbennumi) to 
quench. And thus, as recommended in reference to Baptizo and 
Baptisma in the report already quoted, (see page 12 note,) the 
words asbeston, &c. ‘‘ being left untranslated” (to use the words of 
Doctors Macauley, Milnor and Dewitt,) ‘‘ imposes no difficulty 
on any denomination of Christians, as it leaves every minister, 
or missionary, at perfect liberty to explain them according to the 
peculiar views of his particular denomination.”’* » 

Surely it will be acknowledged by all, that a princeple leading 
to such results, is unsound in theory, and highly inexpedient, un- 
safe, and dangerous in practice. If it be thus unsound and unsafe, 
I would ask again, are the Baptists to be charged with Bigotry, 
and Sectarianism, because they refuse to be governed by such 
a principle ? 

Rather, at length, let it be acknowledged, that the only safe 


« Here it will possibly be replied—the Reverend gentlemen, whose words have 
been cited would never agree to the carrying out of the principle to such results, 
since they do not acknowledge Socinians and Universalists as Evangelical denomi- 
nations. I have much pleasure in expressing my firm conviction that they would not 
consent thus to obscure these important dectrines ; no one who is acquainted with 
these estimable, and highly respectable clergymen would doubt, but that they would 
reject with abhorrence the idea, of blotting out the doctrine of Christ’s Deity from the 
bible, by transferring and refusing to translate, those words which establish that 
doctrine. All we contend for is, that the principle upon which they call upon us to 
transfer Baptizo, would authorise the Socinian, if admitted into our Society, to de- 
mand that in none of our translations, should we translate those words which establish 
the Deity of Christ.—It is true, we might shut the Socinian out of our Society, and 
refuse his co-operation, and then he might have no right to demand any con- 
trol over our translations. Still, if the principle is correct upon which we are re- 
quired to transfer Baptizo, the Socinian or the Universalist would himself possess 
the right, to leave untranslated the words which, if translated, would appear to clash 
with his peculiar sentiments.—Our object in the illustrations employed above, has 
been, by no means to intimate that our Pedobaptist brethren would ever consent to 
such glaring obscurations of the sacred text, as are specified; but simply to show 
the unsoundness and injustice, of the princeple upon which we are called upon to re- 

“tain the Greek word for baptism, by showing the dangerous results to which it would 


lead.—The argument we have employed, is that which the Logicians call “ reductio 
ad absurdam,” 





19 


rule, is that whieh has always been followed by Baptist missiona- _ 
ries; the rule which is recognised in the following resolution, 
passed at the Annual Meeting of the Baptist Board of Foreign 
Missions, held at Salem, in April, 1833. 

*¢ Resolved,—T hat all the missionaries of the Board, who are 
or shall be engaged, in translating the Scriptures, be instructed 
to endeavour, by earnest prayer, and diligent study, to ascertain 
the exact meaning of the original text ; to express that meaning 
as exactly as the nature of the languages into which they shall 
translate the bible will permit; and To TRANSFER NO WORDS 
WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF BEING LITERALLY TRANSLATED.” 


CHAPTER ITI. 


A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE QUESTION—‘ IF YOUR CONSCIENCES WILL NOT 
SUFFER YOU TO LEAVE THE WORDS DENOTING BAPTISM, UNTRANSLATED, 
WHY SHOULD YOU PERSIST IN TRANSLATING THEM BY WORDS SIGNIFYING, 
TO IMMERSE ?° 


To this inquiry we reply, 

1. Because we are solemnly convinced that this rs the precise 
meaning of the word Baptizo. 

We are sustained in this our sincere conviction, 

(1.) In the first place by the uniform usage of the word, among 
classical authors, to whom the Greek language was vernacular, 
who employ the word to express the idea signified by the English 
verb, to immerse. 

It would be easy here to cite a multitude of examples to prove 
the above assertion. So long, however, as the works of Carson 
and Ripley and Judd, remain unanswered, we may be permitted 
to conclude that it is admitted, that this is the classical usage of 
the word, and that whenever an ancient Greek employed the 
word Baptizo, he meant immerse. As it is not our intention how- 
ever to enter into this controversy, (if any controversy still exists 
as to the meaning of Baptizo,) we shall content ourselves with 
citing but one instance of the use of the word from a classical 


20 


author, and one from the Septyagint, and then réfer thie reader 
to the unanswered and unanswerable works above referred to, 
where he may meet with a multitude of similar examples. 

Take the following as an instance of the elassical use of the 
word Buptizo: : | } 

Pindar, the celebrated Grecian Lyric poet, (See Pindar, 
Pyth. ii. 139,) describing the malice of his enemies, as unable 
to effect his ruin, compares himself to a cork attached to a net 
in the sea, which, notwithstanding the weight of the net, conti- 
nues to swim upon the surface of the water. His words are as 
follows: ‘‘ As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims 
above, so am I d@dntioto¢ (abaptistos) not wnmersed, or not 
overwhelmed, or (to transfer the word) soam I unbaptized. It 
may be as well to inform the English reader that the Greek a (a) 
is a negative, meaning zo or zot, and in cases like the above, of 
the same meaning as the English wn- ; Baémtvotoc (baptistos) is the 
participle of the verb Baptizo, and signifies dypped, immersed, 
overwhelmed, or (if transferred,) baptized. 

Another Greek writer commenting on the above passage, says, 
‘like the cork of a net in the sea, I am not overwhelmed ; as the 
cork does not sink, solam unbaptized. The cork remains 
aBantoro¢g (abaptistos) wnbaptized, and swims on the surface of 
the sea.” The attentive reader will immediately perceive, that 
if this cork, which is swimming on the water, and one half of 
which, in this situation, would be covered with water, is yet said 
by a Greek writer to be (abaptistos) unbaptized, unimmersed ; then 
the word Baptizo denoted, among the Greeks, nothing less than 
total immersion. It will be seen therefore, that we are fully borne 
out, by the Greek language, in affirming that such as have not 
been zmmersed in water, in the name of the Father and the Son 
and the Holy Ghost, are in the strict and literal sense of the 
word, unbaptized ; whichis precisely the same’ thing as saying 
they are wnzmmersed. ‘There is certainly aless portion of the body 
of an infant, who is sprinkled, covered with water, than there 
is of a cork, when swimming on the water; and if a native Greek, 
writing his vernacular tongue affirms that the latter is (abaptistos) 
unbaptized, certainly we cannot be incorrect in affirming, that the 
former also, is unbaptized. 


21 


The following is presented as an instance of the use of the 
word in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, a 
translation from the Hebrew into Greek, made at the command 
of Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Let the reader turn to 2 Kings yv. 14, 
and he will read in our English version, ‘‘ Then went he (i. e. 
Naaman) down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan.” In 
the Greek of the Septuagint the word is eGanricato (ebapti- 
sato) (from Baptizo,) exactly answering to the Hebrew verb 54y 
(Taval), and correctly rendered in this instance dipped himself. 

Now why are we not called upon, in this passage, to employ the 
absurd doctrine of transfer, and to say either he Tavaled himself, 
or he Baptized himself? Plainly because in this case there is 
no allusion to the ordinance of baptism, and therefore we are at 
liberty to let the meaning of the word be known. Had this been 
an account of an administration of the ordinance of baptism, in- 
stead of an immersion for another purpose, it would have been 
thought “‘ the very climax” of Bigotry to have dared to trans- 
late the word; and we must therefore have covered up its mean- 
ing by employing a Hebrew or a Greek word. 

There is the less need to fortify ourselves by the citation of 
numerous instances of the use of the word among Greek writers, 
as we are sustained in our opinion, that Baptizo means to im- 
merse ;— 

(2.) By the expressed opinion of the most learned Pedobaptists. 
Out of a multitude of instances, I will only select the following : 

1. Witsius, the learned author of the Economy of the Cove- 
nants says, (Book iv. c. 16, sec. 14.) ‘* It cannot be denied, that 
the native signification of the word Baptzzo, is to plunge, to dip.” 

2. Salmasius, an eminent French scholar, who succeeded 
Scaliger inthe university of Leyden, in 1632, says, ‘‘ Baptism is 
ummersion ; and was administered, in ancient times, according 
to the force and meaning of thatword. Now it is opty Rhantism 
or sprinkling, notimmersion or dipping.” 

3. Calvin, that prodigy of human learning, who at the early 
age of 27, published in elegant Latin, his ‘Institutes of the 
Christian religion,” says, (Book, iv. c. 15, sec. 19.) ‘The 
word itself to baptize, signifies to wmmerse, and it is certain that 
immersion was the practice of the ancient church.” 


22 


4. Diodati, the learned author of an elegant and faithful ver- 
sion of the bible into the Italian language, says in his annotations 
upon Matt. iii. 6, and Rom. vi. 4. ‘* Baptezed—viz. plunged in 
water. In baptism, beeng depped in water according to the an- 
cient ceremony, itis a sacred figure unto us, that sin ought to be 
drowned in us, by God’s Spirit.” 

o. Dr. John Lawrence Mosheim, the chancellor of the Uni- 
versity of Gottingen, the learned author of one of the most po- 
pular ecclesiastical histories ever written ; although by too many 
proofs he shows, that he is no friend to the Baptists, is yet com- 
pelled by the force of truth, to express himself in the following 
language: (Century i. c. 3, sec. 3.) Describing the effect of 
John’s ministry, he says, ‘‘ Those who, being moved by his so- 
lemn admonitions, had formed the resolution of amending their 
lives, were initiated into the kingdom of the Redeemer, by the 
ceremony of immersion or baptism.” 

In another place, the same author remarks, (Cent. i. c. 4, s. 8.) 
“The sacrament of Baptism was administered in this century, 
by the wmmersion of the whole body in the baptismal font.”’ 

Want of space compels me to confine myself to one more 
testimony, although it would be easy to fill a volume, with simi- 
lar quotations. 

6. Dr. Campbell, principal of Marischal College in Aberdeen, 
Scotland, a minister of the Presbyterian church, and one of the 
most profoundly learned men of modern times, in his Preliminary 
Dissertations, has expressed himself in the following language. 

‘*'The Greek word 7ep:toun (peritome), the Latins translated 
circumcisio, (circumcision) which exactly corresponds in Etymo- 
logy ; but the Greek word GBazriowa (Baptisma) (baptism) they 
have retained, changing only the letters from Greek to Roman. 
Yet the latter was just as susceptible of a literal version into 
Latin as the former. Immersio (immersion) answers as exactly 
in the one case, as circumeisio, (circumcision,) in the other. 
When the language furnishes us with materials for a version so 
exact, such a version conveys the sense, more perspicuously 
than a foreign name. For this reason, I should think the word 
immersion, a better English name than baptism, were we now at 
liberty to make a choice.” 


23 


In the same author’s notes upon Matt. iii. 11, he says, 

“The word Baptizo, both in sacred authors and in classical, 
signifies to dup, to plunge, to immerse.”’ 

Now our Baptist missionary brethren, are precisely of the 
same opinion, in reference to the meaning of the word Baptizo, 
as Witsius, Salmasius, Calvin, Diodati, Mosheim and Campbell, 
the learned Pedobaptist authors, whose sentiments are quoted 
above. Like their Presbyterian brother, Dr. Campbell, they 
think, to translate the word, and print ammerszon, is better than to 
retain the Greek word baptism; and whatever circumstances 
may exist to prevent the liberty of making a choice at the pre- 
sent day, in respect to the English version, they think they-are at 
laberty to make a choice, in giving the bible to the heathen; and 
therefore that they not only may but must, translate the word 
by its true and proper meaning; they therefore uniformly render 
the word, zmmerse. 

(3.) We are sustained in the opinion that immerse is the pre- 
cise meaning of Baptizo, in the third place, because the Greeks, 
to whom the Greek language is vernacular, have always under- 
stood it so, and consequently always have, and still continue te 
administer the ordinance of Baptism, exclusively by immersion. 

Common sense would certainly teach us that a nation who 
speak a given language, are the best qualified to teach us the mean- 
ing of any word in that language; and if the whole body of the 
people were to persist, both by their declarations and their prac- 
tice, in maintaining that a given word has a particular meaning ; 
it would certainly appear like presumption, or folly, or both uni- 
ted, for any foreigner or company of foreigners'to undertake to 
prove it did not mean, what the former asserted it'did mean, and 
always had meant. 

Just in this light, does the conduct of such as attempt to prove 
that Baptizo means any thing besides immersion, appear to the 
natives of Greece themselves. | I am indebted for the substance 
of this remark to an interesting young Greek, who isa graduate 
of one of our American colleges. 

(4.) We are sustained in our conviction that immerse is the 
true rendering of Baptezo, in the fourth place, from the wncontro- 


24 


vertible fuct that many of the most valuable versions both ancient 
and modern, render the word precisely as our missrtonaries have 
done, by a word signifying to immerse. | 

It is so rendered in the old Syriac or Peshito, a translation made 
as early as the beginning of the second century, and which the 
learned Michaelis pronounced to be the very best translation of 
the Greek Testament which he ever read; and in several other 
of the best ancient translations. 

Among the modern translations in which it is thus rendered 
may be enumerated, the reformer Luther’s excellent German ver- 
sion, the I,ower Saxon, the Danish, the Swedish, and the 
Belgian. In the German and Lower Saxon, the word is 
taufen; in the Danish it is dobe; in the Swedish, dopa; and in 
the Belgian, doopen. These words all mean the same as the 
English word dep, and are intimately related to it, both in de- 
rivation and in sound. 

The above are some of the reasons why we think immerse is 
the precise meaning of Baptizo, and although they are briefly 
stated, we think them abundantly sufficient to satisfy the mind of 
any unprejudiced, honest inquirer.. I may be permitted here to 
mention a fact which exhibits the force of truth on the mind of a 
sincere inquirer. A few months since, a Danish gentleman who 
had recently become pious, was present at the West Baptist 
church in this city, and listened to a sermon in which the above 
fact was stated in reference to the translation of the word in the 
German, Saxon, Danish, Swedish and Belgian languages. When 
he left the house he returned home, and examined his bible atten- 
tively, and though previously much prejudiced in favour of 
sprinkling, very soon applied for membership in that church, 
stating that it was precisely as it had been stated, and his greatest 
surprise was, that he had never discovered it, or noticed it before. 

To the inquiry proposed at the head of this chapter, we reply 
not only by professing our conviction that such is the meaning of 
the word—but, in the second place, 

2. We translate Baptizo, immerse, because if we were disposed to 
translate tt by evther of the other meanings, which have been sometimes 
given to rt (viz. to pour, or to sprinkle,) we could not do so without 


25 


waking the Scriptures speak the language of absurdity, and thus 
exposing ourselves to be convicted of unfurthfulness by the common 
sense of the heathen themselves. 

To discover the force of this observation, let the reader take a 
concordance of the, New Testament, and in every passage where 
the word baptize, or baptism occurs, let him substitute the word 
pour ; and then let him make the same attempt with the word 
sprinkle, and he will immediately see why we say that to trans- 
late by using either of these terms, would make the Scriptures 
speak the language of absurdity, and expose the translator to be 
convicted of unfaithfulness by the common sense of the heathen 
themselves. 

We can only present two or three examples, with each word 
as a specimen of the whole. 

First—Suppose we translate by the word pour. How will 
the following passages sound ? 

Mark i. 9. Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was 
PouRED of John in Jordan: | 

Acts ii, 41. Then they that gladly received his word, were 
POURED. 

Acts viii. 12.. When they believed Philip preaching the things 
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, 
they were PpouRED, both men and women. 

Now, I ask, what would the heathen think of a book which 
contained language so utterly absurd as the above expressions? 
Pourmg men and women! we may pour water, but to talk of pour- 
ing a man is ridiculous. If I were to present a bible translated 
in this marner to an untutored heathen, I should expect him to 
turn from it as a clumsy and absurd imposture. Nor shall we 
succeed any better if we translate by the word SPRINKLE. 

Let us make the attempt in the following passages : 

Luke xii. 50. ‘‘I have a sprINKLING to be SPRINKLED with, 
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.” If a heathen 
had perused the affecting account of the amazing agonies of the 
blessed Saviour, as recorded in the 22d and 23d chapters of the 
same gospel, would he think that mere SPRINKLING were an ade 
quate emblem of such overwhelming sufferings ? 

John iii. 23. “And John also was SPRINKLING in Enon, near 
to Salim, because there was much water there.” 


4 


26 


Would not an untutored heathen, if he read such a passage 
as the above, immediately exclaim, ‘I should have thonght it did 
‘not require much water to sprinkle, even a multitude: a gallon of 
water might answer the purpose as well as a river. Why should 
it be said he was sPRINKLING in this neighbourhood, BECAUSE 
there was much water there? Ido not understand this. There 
must be some mistake here, or else the book itself is an absurdity?” 

Rom. v. 3, 4. Know ye not, that so many of us, as were 
SPRINKLED into Jesus Christ, were SPRINKLED into his death. 
Therefore we are BURIED with him by sPRINKLING into death. 

Would not a Hindoo or a Burman, accustomed as he is to 
the beautiful and appropriate figures of Oriental imagery, such as 
are used in the Scriptures, upon reading language like the above, 
instantly suspect there was something wrong here? ‘ BuriED 
with him by sprinkuine !’ he would exclaim— I always sup- 
posed in the use of figurative language, there must be a corres- 
pondence between the figure and the thing represented by it ;— 
and in the other parts of this book, there is a beautiful propriety 
in the figures employed ;—but what resemblance can there possi- 
bly be between sPpRINKLING and a BURIAL*” 

Surely, if a translation containing the absurdities produced by 
either of the above renderings, were to be presented to a heathen 
possessed of good common sense; that common sense would 
lead him to contrast the Jofty sublimity, noble sense, and beautiful 
propriety of all the other parts of this book, with the evident ab- 
surdity of these passages, and to conclude in his mind, either that 
the passages themselves were interpolations, or else that they had 
been corrupted by the duplicity of the translator. Ineed scarcely 
add, that by using the words zmmerse, zmmersion, all these absur- 
dities are avoided, and a noble and consistent sense produced in 
every instance.* | | 

I ask, therefore, once more—are the Baptists to be charged with 
Bigotry and Ultra-sectarianism, because they translate the word 


* To the reader, who has carefully perused the above remarks, it will not be difficult 
to discover one powerful reason, at least, why our Pedobaptist friends are so ex- 
tremely desirous to retain the word Baptizo, untranslated in the versions which they 
give to the heathen, viz. that they must keep it untranslated, or else they mist trans- 
late it immerse, unless they would produce a version, which in 2 short time would de- 
stroy itself by its own absurdity, 


27 


Baptizo, tmmerse, since it is their solemn and deliberate vonvic- 
tion, that this is its precise meaning; since they are sustained in 
this conviction, by the meaning of the word among Greek au- 
thors ; by the expressed opinion of the most learned Pedobap- 
tists, that sucli is its meaning; by the well known fact, that the 
Greeks themselves have always so understood, and so practised; 
and by the equally undeniable fact, that it is thus translated, in 
some of the best versions of the New Testament, both ancient 
and modern; some of which translations are actually at the pre- 
sent time patronised and circulated by the American Bible So- 
ciety? And more than all this, since the translation of the word 
uniformly, by any other term besides zumerszon, would make the 
Scriptures speak the language of absurdity, and render the trans- 
lator liable to be convicted of unfaithfulness by the heathen them- 
selves? If, after this, any shall be so unreasonable as to reiterate 
the charge; we merely reply, we do not wish to de uncharitable, 
or to be thought so; if however, kind words are to be bought by 
the SACRIFICE OF TRUTH, we can never consent to purchase 
them at a price so dear. GREAT IS THE TRUTH, AND IT WILL, 
YT MUST PREVAIL. 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE CHARGE OF EMBARRASSING MISSIONARY OPERATIONS SHOWN TO BELONS, 
NOT TO BAPTISTS, WHO TRANSLATE LITERALLY THE COMMAND OF CHRIST 
RELATING TO BAPTISM, AND STRICTLY ADHERE TO THAT COMMAND BY 
PRACTISING IMMERSION ONLY $5 BUT TO PAHDOBAPTISTS WHO COVER UP THE 
MEANING OF BAPTISM FROM THE HEATHEN UNDER THE VEIL OF A GREEK 
WORD, AND BY PRACTISING SPRINKLING, EXHIBIT BEFORE THE HEATHEN 
WORLD THE SPECTACLE OF TWO BAPTISMS, WHEN CHRIST HAS ESTA- 
BLISHED BUT ONE. 


In the extract quoted at the commencement of this pamphlet, 
the Baptists are harshly charged with “the sin of embarrassing, 
hindering, and delaying the conversion of the world.” 

Now, admitted that the difference of opinion and practice upon 
the subject of Baptism, and the different modes adopted by the 
one party, of translating the word, and by the other party, of 


23° 


leaving it untranslated—admitted, I say, that this does produce 
embarrassment in missionary operations; to whom, I ask, is 
this embarrassment chargeable? ‘l’o those who are guilty of an 
obstinate adherence to truth, or to those who are guilty of an ob- 
stinate adherence to error? No one will deny that the charge 
belongs to the latter class, whether they are Baptists or Pedo- 
baptists. Such as would censure any denomination for undevi- 
ating (call it, if you will, obstinate) adherence to truth, imitate the 
conduct of the Roman governor Pliny, who,. when writing to 
Trajan the emperor, concerning the early Christian martyrs, says, 
‘Such as persisted in the profession of Christianity, I ordered 
away to be punished: for Thad no doubt, whatever might be the 
nature of their opinions, they ought to be punished for their zn- 
flexible obstinacy.” 

The question then arises, which party are wrong, in this case? 
The Baptists, who preach, and practise, and print ¢mmersion, or 
the Pedobaptists, who preach and practise sprinklong, but print 
nothing but the Greek word? If the Baptists are wrong, and 2 
is their duty to give Greek words to the’ perishing heathen, in- 
stead of words in their own language; if they do not translate 
the word by its true meaning; if they do not obey the command 
and imitate the example of Christ, when they go down into the 
water ; but if they have introduced a baptism which Christ did 
not command; then, we confess, thatthe charge of embarrassing 
missionary operations belongs to the Baptists. But if, on the 
other hand, the Pedobaptists are wrong in giving to the heathen 
a Greek word for baptism, instead of a word in their own lan- 
guage; if they do not act in accordance with the command and 
the example of Christ, when they sprinkle a few drops of water 
on the face of an infant, and say, ‘‘I baptize thee ;”’ then I con- 
tend that the charge of embarrassing missionary operations belongs 
to them. If the Baptists believed that sprinkling was one mode 
of baptism, equally valid with immersion, while their brethren be- 
lieved that nothing but sprinkling was baptism; and if they yet 
refused to conform to the example of their brethren, that the hea- 
then might see, that as they had one Lord and one Faith, they 
had also one Baptism, though they could conscientiously thus 
conform ; then I admit, they would be chargeable with all the 


29 


confusion, and embarrassment, which arises from exhibiting to 
the heathen two baptisms. But they do not believe that sprinkling 
is baptism, and they therefore cannot conscientiously either prac= 
tise sprinkling themselves, or acknowledge sprinkling to be bap- 
tism when performed by others. 

Now, let it be remembered, that the Pedobaptists do universally 
know and acknowledge immersion to be baptism, and might, 
therefore, invariably practise it without violating their own consci- 
entious opinions ; that notwithstanding this, they do persist in 
the introduction of sprinkling wherever their missionaries go; 
thus presenting before the heathen, the painful spectacle of two 
baptisms, while he reads in the sacred book which they put into 
his hands of ‘* one Lord, one Faith, onE BAPTISM.” 

Upon whose heads, then, does the charge rest, of embarrass- 
ing missionary operations among the heathen? Let candor and 
honesty answer the question, and the charge will rebound from 
those at whom it has been hurled, and alight upon the heads of 
those who have cast it at us. 

One word more to my Pedobaptist brethren, and I have done. 
If aught in the preceding pages has the appearance of harshness 
or severity, believe me, when I say, it was not intended; the 
cause of TRUTH required that the arguments should be placed in 
as strong a point of light as the writer was capable of presenting 
them; but nothing has proceeded from unkindness of spirit. 
Beloved brethren, you and we, and your missionaries and ours, 
must in a little while stand before the great tribunal, to give an 
account of our stewardship ; then it will be seen whether you 
or we are guilty in introducing ¢wo baptisms, when Christ has 
established but one; then it will be seen whether, in this matter, 
your practice or ours, was agreeable to the mind of Christ; then 
it will be seen whether you or we were guilty in embarrassing 
the efforts of the church for the conversion of the heathen.—Are 
you prepared, beloved brethren, at that tribunal, to justify your- 
selves_in this matter? Excuse us, if we express our solemn 
conviction, that the weight of this awful responsibility rests upon 
you—and that you alone will have to answer for all the embar- 
rassments which result from introducing among the heathen two 
kinds of baptism. As for ourselves, as Baptists, we rejoice that, 


30 


in this matter, we have the testimony of our consciences, that we 
are pleasing God; and if any apology be demanded of us for 
strictly and literally adhering to the command of Christ, in refer- 
ence to this divine ordinance, this is our defence, and with this 
we contemplate with pleasure the account we shall have to give 
of our conduct in this respect, at the tribunal of the Judge. It 
is written in the Statutes of the King in Zion, ‘ Ye shall not add 
unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish 
aught from it.” 

We are contending only for THE TRUTH ; we cannot, WE DARE 
NoT sacrifice truth to expediency, even though we were entreated to 
make the sacrifice upon the altar of charity. Our allegiance to our 
Master is superior to every other consideration, and we are com- 
manded in the Statute-book of His kingdom, to 

‘“BUY THE TRUTH AND SELL IT NOT.” 


THE END. 














